This is EXACTLY why we have the electoral college! Once again proving that the forefathers of the United States of America were some of the brightest minds!

He didn't win. Get over it and be THANKFUL!

That proves nothing except that there are vast stretches of land with very few people living there. If you want to make this claim, please explain why the person with the most votes can lose. It's a tough sell for most people (and it would be to you if roles were reversed in the last election). A pretty map may impress grade-school kids, but it proves nothing.

It is a pretty map, by the way.

John

If ANYONE else had posted that infantile comment, I might've responded to it with a through explaination on how our forefathers KNEW that it wasn't just about populated cites that would carry the vote of an entire state and thereby reducing the campaigning a candidate would have to do to get his word out. Unfortunately it was from an "educated man" that can't seem to break the socialistic dog collar that's choking of the oxygen supply to his brain!

Oh, that's right you're a professor!

"WAKE UP!" - RATM

Dubya won,give or take a few improprieties. I wonder if Republicans would say that Gore won had the situation been reversed and having recieved A million less votes? BTW,I'm not thanking God,but I'm praying to him a lot lately. X

come on JD! Look again without you bias. You really think the red on that map is "sparsely populated", look again, now one more time... Come on JD! You’re intellectually bankrupt if you take that position!! Why not stand that argument on its head and say, look at the blue areas? Ok, there are some dense metros there. Indeed, and there are bastions of liberalism, i.e., Boston, New York City, SF, etc… But PLEASE! Don’t do yourself a disservice with this kind of guano. This is the map I was referring to in my post against ASS the other day. It tells a story…

Robby,

De facto, anyone can conclude that this map is misleading. Bush lost the popular vote, thus, the red of the map must be telling us one of two things:

1. There aren't very many people in these counties.

or

2. Bush barely won the counties he won, thereby making both the vote closer AND the map misleading...as Bush would have just barely won, not won decisively.

You pick. Either way, your blowhard response looks ridiculous.

DMV,

You say 'you are a professor' as if that's an insult. Do you intend it to be? If so, you need to explain.

John

hehehe "blow" aa ahhh hehe "hard"

The Electoral College ensures that votes in North Dakota carry the same weight as votes in New York City. Without it, the big Cities would be electing all the Presidents.

Are we going to try and rewrite the electorial college so the Liberals can trounce the Republicans in all future elections? Not!

GWB won fair and square-thank God for that! Now Algore can go about inventing more wonderful things such as the internet and whatever else he so claims.

Charlie

What is ridiculous is the point that Gore got more votes. What is the point? Who's president? It's almost as ridiculous as me continuing to carry on about the blow jobs Clinton was getting in the Oral Office, who cares!? It was despicable, it makes good board fodder, but in the end, it's just a talking point. Just like your position that Gore got more votes. Despite the fact that the major networks announced that Gore had already won Florida while the polls were still open in the more conservative pan handle section and other parts of the U.S. ... Can you say, liberal media conspiracy? Even with this thinly veiled attempt at rigging the election, BUSH STILL WON!! And probably would have done so with more votes as opposed to the virtual dead heat, which seems to put the libs in to such a dead heated state.

Are we still on this?

Mom! He started it!

Did not!

Charlie

Robby,

?

Liberal media because exit polls showed Gore winning? How is that 'rigging' the election? Get a little precision with terms, ok?!

The question is not insignificant; it concerns the legitimacy of a leader who is taking a VERY conservative trajectory as president, doing things not reflected by the voters' profile...no matter how you think of it. So legitimacy, sometimes called 'mandate', is a real and ongoing question.

I never said, by the way, that he isn't president. But he is a president with an asterik, like when Maris broke Ruth's record. That's my analogy.

John

Alright guys and gals just so we can keep things straight around here.I was the first one to call jdrabinski a "Blowhard" OK? is that clear? Good! :0)

Carry on...

Seems to me Benjamin Harrison won his Presidency the same way. I never see an asterisk by his name though. I am sure Grover Cleveland bitched mightily! Oddly enough, Grover won the next term. Does history repeat itself?
John, you know as well as I do that this administration watches polls. If the polls shift drastically, we will see a shift in policy. They have that second term to think of. That's opinion, not fact.

jjohnson,

Ha ha ha...I remember thinking of that, and thinking (to recall a recent exchange) that such was also a case of the pot calling the kettle black. lol!

But thanks for setting us straight.

John

Well, I must say leadership is refreshing as opposed to blowing with the wind of the polls... You and I don't have information that he does. I believe he's acting in our best interests despite what the Sadam supporters feel.

"You and I don't have information that he does."

Huh? So we do whatever he says? No. This is not a benevolent dictatorship...or so I hope it isn't.

"I believe he's acting in our best interests despite what the Sadam supporters feel."

What basis do you have for that? The evidence of past decisions seem to suggest he acts in the interest of the wealthy and the oil industry. Do why are you so optimistic about Bush's altruism? There doesn't seem to be any basis for that.

Also, as to the issue of polls, I don't think this president listens to them. Think of the Alaska wilderness decision. This is SERIOUSLY unpopular, and the president has pushed it since day one. Why? Well, would his roots in the oil industry have anything to do with it? Or Cheney's roots in the same? NO! NEVER! Errr...ok, yes, of course it does.

Ever wonder who was in that secret meeting to form energy policy with Cheney? You know, the one he has refused to disclose? Ah, democracy Bush-Cheney style.

John

Heh, "******-tatter"

The last time I checked, I was employed by a corporation? When corporations prosper, they invest, spend, grow, hire, pay salaries... I like corporations, I don't live on a commune.

As for his altruism? I don't know if he's an Alto, that seems a bit high, a tenor maybe.

I hear the caribou in Alaska which were forecasted to die out when the pipeline when it have actually prospered...

Secret meetings??? Can you say Travelgate? Whitewatergate? and oh, the infamous "Tailgate"? He's got some catching up to do before he even gets CLOSE to your hero...